C.F.R. » Title 38 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS › PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE › Subpart J—Action by the Board in Legacy Appeals

38 C.F.R. § 20.901

Rule 901. Submission of additional evidence after initiation of appeal

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to the limitations set forth in Rule 1304 (§ 20.1304 of this part), an appellant may submit additional evidence, or information as to the availability of additional evidence, after initiating an appeal. The provisions of this section do not apply in proceedings before the General Counsel conducted under part 14 of this chapter to cancel accreditation or to review fee agreements and expenses for reasonableness.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5902, 5903, 5904; 38 U.S.C. 5904, 7105(d)(1) (2016)) [57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 73 FR 29879, May 22, 2008. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 188, 190, Jan. 18, 2019; 84 FR 4337, Feb. 15, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2023 · leading case: Barney O. Padgett v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 133 (Vet. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barney O. Padgett v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 133 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 26× “As its authority for requesting the opinion, the Board's letter cites Veterans Health Administration Directive 10-95-040 (April 17, 1995), 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (1999), and 38 U.S.C. § 7109 .”
Frances D'Aries v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (Vet. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “§ 7109 and 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 was adequate for rating purposes, the Board provided adequate reasons or bases for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician, and there was no error in the notice provided, the Board decision will be affirmed.”
Disabled Am. Vets. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 419 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 21× “Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, and the National Veterans Legal Services Program (collectively “petitioners”) petition for review of a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (a). We hold that the regulation is valid and…”
Shoffner v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 208 (Vet. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “§ 7109 (a); see 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (d). The veteran has argued that both the RO request for a specialist's opinion and the Board's request for an IMO were tainted because of certain details provided in the request letters.”
Austin v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 547 (Vet. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “§ 7109 precludes the BVA from obtaining any medical opinions not rendered by an independent source; this contention, in essence, challenges the validity of 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (a) (1993), and perhaps § 20.”
Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “" 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 . The Board is also authorized to obtain a medical opinion from an independent medical expert if "expert medical opinion, in addition to that available within the Department, is warranted by the medical complexity or controversy involved in an appeal case.”
Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “§ 7109 (a); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (a). Additionally, Congress, and the VA through the passage of enabling regulations, created a procedural safeguard to this first-instance evidence gathering by the Board.”
Colayong v. West, 12 Vet. App. 524 (Vet. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, the Court will remand the claim for the Board to obtain a “medical opinion from the Chief Medical Director or an independent medical expert [(IME)], pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (a),(d) (199[8J),” as part of the readjudication of the Pott’s disease claim that we…”
Edward T. Splane & Paralyzed Vets. of Am. v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 216 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “Thus, Petitioners challenge 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (c), which authorizes the Board to request general counsel opinions, as being without statutory support.”
Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517 (Vet. App. 1995). “Ulcer and Anxiety Conditions The appellant does not contest the Board’s decision to increase the disability rating from 20% to 40%, but argues that the BVA decision regarding his claim for an increased rating for his ulcer and anxiety conditions should be remanded for the…”
G Eorge R. T Heiss v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 204 (Vet. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “33, 34 (2001) (per curiam order)); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (c) (2003). Therefore, the Board was required to follow the VA General Counsel precedent opinion in this case.”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993). “§ 7109 ) 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 (a), (b), (d) (1992) (Rule 901).”
Show all 58 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.